A Golden Chain

Neither are his reasons taken from the absurdity that would follow, of more force then the former, albeit he maketh them especial pillars to underprop the truth of his cause. For, I pray you, is God of less truth, because his truth is neglected, and derided of them that contemn it? Is the ceremony of Baptism therefore in vain, because some refuse the grace offered in Baptism: others (if we may believe D. Andreas) reject that grace when they have received it? What? Is not the Gospel therefore the power of God to salvation, because it is to such as believe not, the savour of death to eternal death? May not the Supper of the Lord, be a pledge of Gods covenant, because so may abuse these holy signs, or, (as D. Andreas is of opinion) the very body and blood of our Saviour Christ? And, that I may reason from that which is true in the experience of every child, can the Sun be said to be without light, because they which are blind, and asleep, have no benefit by the light thereof, neither such as shut their eyes so close, that they will not enjoy the comfort of the light? But amongst all, this one is most childish, that D• Andreas will make this his principal argument, namely, that in vain did men, thus tempted, fly at all unto Baptism, unless we conclude with him, that all such as are baptized, are in Baptism adopted the sons of God. For first, if this were a good consequent from baptism, it were in vain, for such an afflicted conscience, to gather unto himself a testimony from the word of God, and the other Sacrament of the Lords Supper, unless we make all those to be in like sort regenerate and adopted, unto whom the word of God is preached, and the Lords supper administered, either of which, for D. Andreas to affirm, is a bold untruth.

Neither are his reasons taken from the absurditie that would follow, of more force then the former, albeit he maketh them especiall pillars to vnderproppe the truth of his cause. For, I pray you, is God of lesse truth, because his truth is neglected, and derided of them that contemne it? Is the ceremonie of Baptisme therefore in vaine, because some refuse the grace offered in Baptisme: others (if we may beleeue D. Andreas) reiect that grace when they haue receiued it? What? Is not the Gospel therfore the power of God to saluation, because it is to such as beleeue not, the sauour of death to eternall death? May not the Supper of the Lord, be a pledge of Gods couenant, because so may abuse these holy signes, or, (as D. Andreas is of opinion) the very bodie and blood of our Sauiour Christ? And, that I may reason from that which is true in the experience of euery childe, can the Sunne be saide to be without light, because they which are blinde, and asleepe, haue no benefit by the light thereof, neither such as shut their eyes so close, that they will not enioy the comfort of the light? But amongst all, this one is most childish, that D Andreas will make this his principall argument, namely, that in vaine did men, thus tempted, flie at all vnto Baptisme, vnlesse we conclude with him, that all such as are baptized, are in Baptisme adopted the sonnes of God. For first, if this were a good consequent from baptisme, it were in vaine, for such an afflicted conscience, to gather vnto himselfe a testimonie from the word of God, and the other Sacrament of the Lords Supper, vnlesse we make all those to be in like sort regenerate and adopted, vnto whome the word of God is preached, and the Lords supper administred, either of which, for D. Andreas to affirme, is a bold vntruth.